±«Óătv

Brian McClinton supports incest then. Is that the official NI Humanist line on family sex?

I think the humanists are entirely consistent in their defence of incest. When people stop believeing in god, they are willing to believe just about anything. Alas.

Hi Demi:

No it’s not the ‘official line’. We are not a political party or a religious organisation. On the contrary, we welcome diversity of opinion. We thrive on it. We applaud it and celebrate it. It is part and parcel of what Humanism is all about. It is religious and political organisations which try to force people into straitjackets and tell them what to think and say. Most of us joined a humanist organisation to escape from this kind of mental slavery. We think for ourselves and act for others.

On the programme I gave my own view and I made that absolutely clear. But I know that some Humanists agree with it and some don’t. We are in the business of exploring morality, not dictating a preconceived policy on it determined by some pope of Humanism  – a contradiction in terms. I certainly would not dictate to other humanists what to say about any issue, and I would not expect them to do the same to me. That is freethought in action. Advise, yes, suggestions, yes, but dictation is out of the question.

I also know that Ireland is not renowned for its liberal views on sex. We have had centuries of sexual repression. Well, maybe it’s time to change. After all, we have had 30 years of Protestants and Catholics fighting each other over ‘their’ rights. Is it not time that other rights  – even of those who do things we personally dislike  – were also accepted, provided they do nobody else any harm? And that covers a wide range indeed.

I said that incest was not immoral if certain conditions apply: adult consent, honesty, caring and commitment. I accept that there are possible consequences for children of incest relationships. But of course children need not be the outcome of sex. In fact, in most cases it isn’t. If sex were merely for reproduction, then people should stop doing it after about 45, the age by which most women are infertile. Apart from that, what’s the big issue?

There is so much pontificating nonsense talked about sex, and in Ireland it sometimes seems in public discourse as if it were the only moral issue. There are far more vital ethical questions in the world.

The interesting thing, too, is that atheists/humanists etc are often accused by religious people of being intolerant. But when it comes to so many specific issues, including sex, we beat religion for tolerance every time. It is religious groups generally who display most of the censoriousness and negativism.

Incredible. Brian McClinton and I agree!

Oh come on, John. We have agreed on at least three different issues recently. I am a libertarianism humanist. Indeed, you might describe me as a 'militant liberal', the militancy being necessary in a society which reeks of the stench of hypocrisy, especially in matters of sex, and which drowns out any wiff of independent thought or exiles its dissidents to other shores. it is hardly surprising, therefore, that we should find common cause on quite a few matters.

Let’s for a moment indulge Brian on his dismissal of sacred texts as an arbiter of public morality and then, on the basis of his views in post 3, ask ourselves a few basic questions.

(1) Humanists don’t have an official line. “We are in the business of exploring morality” etc. “We have had centuries of sexual repression. Well, maybe it’s time to change.”

But he also says, “We think for ourselves and act for others.” So, how is he going to do the second bit, acting for others, without, at the very least, having some form of Humanist consensus? Even in his own individualistic terms decriminalisation of incestuous relationships means a change in the public law. This requires an arbiter of some kind, thinking for ones-self isn’t enough in this case. So, let’s run with consensus as the arbiter, and accept his view, “I said that incest was not immoral if certain conditions apply: adult consent, honesty, caring and commitment.” as the basis for consensus.

Doesn’t he foresee any problems with the idea of adult consent and the *already established relationship* of father/mother to son/daughter? Issues of power, dependence perhaps? The breaking of a previous relationship between fathers/mothers as partners?

“Honestly, I care for you, and I’m committed to you, (my son/daughter) but in order to be so, understand I have lied about my previous commitment to care for your mother/father!”

So, I’m wondering what is the consensus of the Humanist Association of Northern Ireland on this matter. Maybe they rejoice in not speaking with one voice but perhaps they might wish to offer a fragmented one.

(2) “I accept that there are possible consequences for children of incest relationships”

Indeed.

(3) “There are far more vital ethical questions in the world”

There may indeed be other vital ethical questions in the world, but I would have thought that how we relate to one another and how we understand the limits of those relationships, especially the ones from which we derive an identity, would be pretty important. And particularly as “sex (isn’t) merely for reproduction”. Psychological/emotional attachment?

(4) “Apart from that, what’s the big issue?”

Ignoring the bible (yet) again, maybe we should note Will’s points 2 and 3 above.

(5) I don’t have an exact quote for this one, but from the top of the page, “Brian McClinton rejected sacred texts as a arbiter of pubic morality and argued that society needs to decriminalise incestuous relationships, just as we have decriminalised other taboo relationships”

So which taboo relationship does he have in mind next?

Religious Salve:

Saying that there is no humanist line on incest is not the same as saying that there is no humanist ‘line’ on sex in general. I would have outlined this more fully on the programme, given the opportunity, but the media generally try to avoid abstract philosophical discussions, which is a pity because it means that people’s views are not properly contextualised.

Most religions are dualistic: they believe that we comprise a body and a spirit and that the spirit is connected to a god or gods. Inevitably, therefore they tend to denigrate the body or at least imply that bodily activities like sex should have higher functions beyond themselves. Humanists, however, take a monistic view which says that all we have is our bodies, of which our mind is a part.

Sex, to which I would ascribe a wider definition than that implied by Bill Clinton, is bodily contact for physical pleasure. It does not have to involve intercourse. It is a natural activity, like eating or exercise. And as such, it doesn’t necessarily have an external function. We may eat to live or exercise to be healthy, but we can do these things simply because we enjoy them. Sex is not necessarily a means to an end: reproduction, expression of love, for communication, heightening awareness and so on. It may simply be for the pleasure of itself.

The churches have tended to argue that sex for pleasure is wrong, that it is somehow ‘dirty’. Because of their power in Irish society, they have created a lot of unnecessary guilt. They have tried to tie it to procreation. But the fact of the matter is that it is a poor mechanism for this purpose (thank goodness: we already have 6.7 billion on the planet). Even indulgent newly weds who omit contraception have only about a 28% probability of conception per menstrual cycle. And, as I said, most women are infertile by 45. But most people don’t stop have sex after that age.

Clearly, procreation is not the only or even main context of sexual activity. People do it largely for pleasure. And Humanism has a positive, not negative attitude, to that. We welcome all life-enhancing and healthy pleasures. As I said on Sunday Sequence, that could cover not just sex but also appreciation of Michelangelo’s David or Beethoven’s 9th, a Christiano Ronaldo goal or the view from Scrabo Tower or the parade at Donaghadee.

In discussions of the morality and legality of sex, there are, I think four key issues, and, again, there would be a humanist consensus on at least 3 of them with regard to incest. They are: consent, tolerance, rights and consequences.

CONSENT
In 1963 British Quakers produced a booklet Towards A Quaker View of Sex, which stated: “Where there is a genuine tenderness, an openness to responsibility, and the seed of commitment, God is surely not shut out”. Now, if you take God out of this statement, there is I believe very little here with which a Humanist would disagree. If there is informed consent, if there is tenderness, responsibility, caring, commitment and so on, then it’s not immoral. As Kinsey said, the living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.

We have to ask: Are there any victims? Does it involve minors? Does it involve lies or deception? Is it hurting someone else? If the answers to these questions are no, then I think that, as John Stuart Mill said, “whatever consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is nobody’s business but their own”. Many of us may dislike the idea of incest, or even be repulsed by it, but there is a tendency to confuse personal distaste for an activity with moral condemnation. The personal distaste element is partly connected to the fact that the majority of incest cases in the world are child abuse cases. But child abuse is definitely wrong; incest is not necessarily wrong if it involves adult consent, and so on.

TOLERANCE
The word ‘tolerance’ is often forgotten in discussions of sex. Tolerance means putting up with things you don’t like or disapprove of. The remark attributed to Voltaire was: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. This could be paraphrased as: “I disapprove of what you do, but I will defend your right to do it, provided it is consensual and hurting no one else. We could apply this principle to the law. Morality and law are not necessarily identical. We could argue that moral disapproval does not mean that there should be a law against something. The reason is that our morality might be regarded as a personal thing, not something that we think should be legally imposed on everybody else. I said that incest the conditions outlined should be legalised. That does not necessarily imply approval on my part. Personally, I would also dislike the idea of incest. But you have to accept that it is legal in a number of countries: Argentina, Brazil, Belgium, France, Israel, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Turkey. Are all these societies 'morally depraved', whereas we British/Irish are 'morally superior' Or are we, to paraphrase Robert Mugabwe, just a tiny little dot in the world?

RIGHTS
I would say that law, a far as possible, should be enacted to enhance freedom and choice. Moreover, the law is not made by religious organisations. We do not live in a theocracy. We live in a democracy, which means that the laws should be made in the interests of all members of society, whether or not they hold religious views. I pointed out on the programme that taking away people’s rights, for whatever reason (Jews, homosexuals, dissidents of one kind or another) in the first half of the 20th century led to Auschwitz and the Gulag; enhancing everyone’s rights since 1945 has created more humane and peaceful societies.

CONSEQUENCES
I doubt if there is much in the above with which a humanist ‘consensus’ would quarrel.
The main problem, as I see it with incest, is the consequences in terms of the children. Are they more likely to be unhealthy? (do we criminalise all sex between ‘unhealthy’ people?). Secondly, there is the stigma which might be attached to them. However, this is not their fault or their parents’ fault, but societies, and society should deal with it. That is my personal view.

As I said, there is not a consensus among humanists on incest. But things change. We all learn. Most societies have now learned to accept homosexuality. No doubt in the past there were some humanists who believed it was immoral. Only by rational argument and discussion can we progress. That is what we humanists do.And there would be no point in debate and discussion if we all agreed.

I don’t know what is next. But what’s the point you are making here? Are there too many rights already? Should we take some away? From whom?

RELIGION AND MORALITY
I have outlined reasons for the separation of these two concepts/processes on other threads and am not rehearsing it here. Sacred texts in general are poor guides to modern knowledge and behaviour. They may contain the odd word of wisdom but it is usually wrapped in a torrent of nonsense.

I am an ordinary member of the same Humanist association as Brian McClinton. I was frankly very annoyed to hear him support incest on a program where he was an invited representative of the Humanist perpective. We have never to my recollection discusssed this issue at a meeting.

Presumably you knew the topic in advance Brian. Who did you talk to before the program to gather a consensus of opinion? I for one certainly do not agree with your views. If these are just your personal views you should not have appeared as a representative of humanism.

Hi ordinaryumanist,

I talked to the group about it at the meeting the previous Thursday (10th April). There was a long discussion and,
barring one dissenter, the consensus was that in the Deaves case there was no immorality.

I was asked to appear on the programme as Brian McClinton. I was introduced as the editor of a magazine not as a member of Humani, and at no time did I or William name the organisation.

Hi ordinaryumanist,

I talked to the group about it at the meeting the previous Thursday (10th April). There was a long discussion and, barring one dissenter, the consensus was that in the Deaves's case there was no immorality.

I was asked to appear on the programme as Brian McClinton. I was introduced as the editor of a magazine, not as a member of Humani, and at no time did I or William name the organisation.

At the launching of Humanism Ireland I said that:

it should seek new models beyond Protestant and Catholic, Orange and Green;

it should assist in the development of new paradigms of living and thinking to replace the groupthink which has been the curse of Ireland for 400 years. Group will be replaced with individualthink, where people can speak freely and fearlessly outside the collective boxes in which they were born;

it should foster a free market in ideas, ethical, religious, political. Nothing should be alien to us in helping to make the world a better and a happier place.

I meant it!

Brian, you certainly were speaking as a humanist on the programme. You were introduced as editor of humanism ireland. your whole contribution was as a humanist and your speech on the programme (when you FINALLY got round to answering Will's simple question) was a humanist essay. If you didn't want the humanist connection to be made, you should have told the programme not to mention the humanist connection. Simple.

ordinaryhumanist- I'm not a humanist but it seems to me that your insistence that Brian conform his views to yours even though you disagree on this issue is quite bizarre; isn't Brian representing the fact that humanists have a range of beliefs on the issue? How many listeners do you think got the impression that all humanists love incest?

This is called being irrational.

Hello ordinaryhumanist,

Brian did state explicitly (twice, if I remember correctly) that he was not representing any humanist 'party line' or representing Humani. I felt it was a bit strange that Will then said something like 'Is this todays headline then? Editor of Humanism Ireland favours incest.' That is hardly more relevant then if Brian had still been a teacher and Will had said 'School teacher favours incest' or if Brian had been a prominent party member of SF or the DUP (not in a million years, I'll bet you) and Will had headlined 'Local DUP leader favours incest'.

I'm a member of the same group. During the meeting preceding the broadcast Brian did mention he had been invited to Sunday Sequence to debate the topic. Also that he would be voicing his own opinion and no one else's.

Talking of personal opinions, I might as well voice mine while posting. I have an instinctive dislike of the idea. The idea of parent-child relations I find particularly repellent. But suppose I learned that people living a bit down the street from me were having such a relationship, I wouldn't from then on shun them. It would have taken me years to even find out. Doesn't hurt me one bit. If they're happy that way, then I'm not too terribly interested.

Question to those here who condemn incest without reservation under any circumstance. Suppose that among your good friends there is a couple you have know for more than a decade who are fine people by just about any criterion. You've never noticed anything about them having an incestuous relationship. Then due to some coincidence you find they are. Would you immediately kick them out of your circle of friends? Why would you feel you need to look at them so totally different if there was exactly nothing about them by which you could even tell they were having an incestuous relationship?

Peter

Peter: I think if a local DUP leader had defended incest that WOULD have been a headline! If a leading Presbyterian minister came on the programme and defended incest, that would have been a major news story, even if that person was explicitly NOT representing the Presbyterian Church. If Brian wanted NO connection with the humanists he should have ensured that his role as editor of humanism ireland was not mentioned. If he was a schoolteacher, his school would be upset if the NAME of his school was mentioned in introducing him.

Hi Helmut (#11)
I appeared (unashamedly) as A Humanist who gave A Humanist view. There are other Humanist views. Simple.

I didn't think people were still so sociologically retarded as to claim that someone holding the position "Incest should not be illegal" (without even beginning to deal with the morality of it) is remotely shocking and/or says something about some group they are a part of. We deal with this attitude constantly on my own radio show and website where the freedoms I advocate for other peaceful, rational human beings (often without making my own moral judgement) is mixed up with issues of morality and of ethics in an very illogical manner.

The faster you people learn that legality should always be separated from morality in discussions of law and policy, the better.

I think this whole sorry episode shows the moral emptiness of humanism. There simply is no content to a humanist ethic. Humanists believe different things; presumably some of them even defend consensual sex with underage young people. Where do we draw the line? How can humanists tell right from wrong at all? They will be defending marriage at the age of 14 next! After all some societies permit that, so why not make that legal too?

I will dispense first with Mr. McClinton’s sleight of hand on a couple of matters before returning to the particular topic in question.

Firstly his implication that most religions are gnostic. This is simply not true. That christians among others have struggled with and misunderstood concepts such as pleasure is unfortunate, but his is a misrepresentation of biblical teaching regarding both the physical body in general and sex in particular. The Song of Songs says most of what we need to know on the matter with regard to pleasure. And note that it is a song, not a legal document.

Secondly, my comments on post 6 were premised on the idea that I would make no mention of sacred texts, except to point out that I wasn’t mentioning them. There is therefore no need for Mr. McClinton to continue with deliberately disparaging remarks such as, “They may contain the odd word of wisdom but it is usually wrapped in a torrent of nonsense.” However, I have come to realise, as a result of reading various threads on this web site, that such supercilious comments are his wont.

Thirdly I asked ‘which *taboo* relationship is next? This was a specific question, not one about rights in general. My point? Well, if we’re going to go exploring morality, without even a consensus, (and it is obvious that the Humanist Association hasn’t got one on this issue) then Mr. McClinton is on dangerous ground. The law is framed to protect and guide, as well as “to enhance freedom and choice”. Morality might well be personal, but how I live affects others, hence law.

Specifically now, on topic:

Mr. McClinton’s thesis is ‘consent’, ‘tolerance’, rights’, ‘consequences’.
So back to my questions, and his. (And, by the way, there’s still no bible being mentioned here)

CONSENT
Doesn’t he foresee any problems with the idea of adult consent and the *already established relationship* of father/mother to son/daughter? Issues of power, dependence perhaps?
“Are there any victims? Does it involve minors? Does it involve lies or deception? Is it hurting someone else?”
And who is going to determine consent, who will protect the vulnerable. In this regard, society has a responsibility to speak up - hence law.

TOLERANCE
Can I expect a toning down of anti-religious rhetoric? Defending the right (to the death no less) of christians to speak? Mmmm.
Tolerance is a fantastic idea, but tolerance does not mean moral anarchy. And as for, others have a different law, so by implication our law deems that they are depraved; is Mr. McClinton now choosing to make a link between law and morality, when previously he didn’t. It’s all rather confusing.

RIGHTS
We do indeed live in a democracy, but we’re not discussing, ‘Jews, homosexuals, (or) dissidents of one kind or another” so we need to ask the question, is this particular ‘right’, to this particular relationship, one which society is going to grant? We can’t just say yes on the basis that we believe in a concept called human rights. We actually need a decision. And we need a decision because we already have a law, will we keep it or repeal it?

CONSEQUENCES
Known consequences, in either the absence of or in tandem with sacred texts, (oops!) might help us arrive at a decision. And Mr. McClinton’s response? “do we criminalise all sex between ‘unhealthy’ people?” Is this all he has to say? No, of course we don’t criminalise all, but most people are thoughtful enough to consider risk first. Isn’t that the basis of most health advice? And then “stigma....is not their fault or their parents’ fault, but societies, and society should deal with it.” and with it the recognition again of consequences for society in regard to personal morality. Where consequences for society exist, then the limits of personal freedom ought to be discussed. The law already impinges on personal freedom, health warnings on tobacco being an example. Are smokers morally inferior? ‘Fat’ people perhaps, people who refuse to recycle? And frankly the, do what you like as long as you don’t harm me argument, is selfish. I would have hoped for something more humane. I think he needs to think again. Maybe he could put it on the agenda for the next meeting of his association, and give the others members a voice.

And did you notice, this is still a bible free zone.

Hi Helen,

That is not good enough. Instead of insults, do me the courtesy of a proper reply. After all, I did try in # 7 to outline some humanist principles and guidelines: tolerance, adult consent, respect for others' rights, equality, consequentialism, the distinction between law and morality etc. These are not empty principles. Far from it: they are at the heart of every civilised society. Most modern societies are actually governed by humanist principles. If humanism is morally empty, then so are most western societies. But perhaps you believe this anyway.

"How can humanists tell right from wrong at all? Well, it is right to: think for yourself; respect truth and reason; be sceptical yet open-minded, respect values, respect life, be open and honest, be loving and kind, help the weak and needy, respect nature, support worthy causes, support democracy and human rights, value artistic creativity and imagination, etc. It is wrong to use other people for your own ends, it is wrong to lie (nearly always), it is wrong to be cruel to other people or animals; it is wrong to exploit others economically;
it is wrong to overpopulate the planet; it is wrong to
pollute the atmosphere, etc. Much of it comes down in the end to what Bertrand Russell suggested in warning about the spread of nuclear weapons in the Pugwash Report written with another humanist, Einstein: "remember your humanity and forget the rest".

So, what you should be doing is giving us some explanation of your own ethic. How do YOU tell right from wrong? Again, you say: "they will be defending marriage at the of 14 next". What age would you set? And why? Where do YOU draw the line etc.

it is difficult to respond rationally and engage in debate with someone who offers only sarcastic comments based on some unexplained assumption of moral superiority which may be apparent to them but remains a mystery to everyone else.

Helen- I feel obligated to preface this comment by telling you that I'm not a humanist, but I found what you said most ignorant and lacking in basic reason.

You say: "...presumably some [humanists] even defend consensual sex with underage young people.

What on earth leads you to presume such a thing?

"They will be defending marriage at the age of 14 next!"

What?!??

One does not need to be a member of a group to see that some criticisms of the group are bizarre, unfounded poppycock. Your comment qualifies. How about actually engaging in what Brian did say and trying to consider logically the argument he's making?

Your comments are ludicrous madam.

It seems to me in reading The Book of Genesis, God only created two people Adam and Eve. Now if this is true and there wasn't incest, perhaps some of you more theologically savvy people could explain to me how all that begotting happened and how we all got here. I KNOW there wasn't immaculate conception until Jesus came along a few thousand years later.

Religious Salve (#18):

PREFACE
I have also read enough threads to know that ‘supercilious comments’ are not the sole prerogative of non-believers. Some Christians have a mania for it! My reference to a ‘torrent of nonsense’ in the Bible is meant in all seriousness. If you would like me to give specific examples, I will oblige.

GNOSTICISM
I tend to avoid religious concepts because they can become the source of eternal esoteric debate which gets nowhere. I prefer the philosophical terms I used: dualism and monism. Most religions ARE dualistic. For example, they tend to argue that when we die it is our soul that ascends to heaven and our body is left behind to rot or be consumed etc (though the Bible is contradictory: it says that Jesus and Mary bodily ascended, though what Moses did is unclear. As for the prophet Elijah, he apparently made a grand entrée, riding a chariot of fire to heaven (2 Kings: 2: 11). What do you think?

PLEASURE
I said that ‘most churches have tended to argue that sex for pleasure is wrong’. In this it is they who slightly misrepresent Biblical teaching, not me. You are quite right to refer to the Song of Songs, an erotic love poem which seems to have slipped into the canon by mistake. But it doesn’t fit in with the rest, which is negative towards sex, especially the first three books.

Most of this hatred of sex is connected with hatred of women. According to Genesis 3:16, woman, for her sin, must for ever bear her children in pain. So, when chloroform was invented, it was denied to women in childbirth until the prolific Queen Victoria defied her religious advisers and insisted on having it. As Marilyn French points out in Beyond Power: On Men, Women and Morals, hatred of sex is tied to hatred of the body, feeling, nonvolition, and women. It is rooted in disgust and contempt for the natural processes of life, which are in every culture associated with only half the human race.

Another reason for the Christian obsession with sex is obvious: much of the dogma is based on guilt, and what better way to make people feel guilty than to set up taboos about one of the strongest instinctive human drives?

WHAT’S NEXT?
I’m afraid you haven’t explained the relevance of this loaded question. It clearly implies that the incest issue is already a step too far, so why not say what you mean? And give us a reason that makes sense. You suggest that we shouldn’t explore morality without a consensus, but this is nonsense. A consensus arises as a result of free exchange of ideas by individuals. Are you saying that nobody should talk about morality unless our opinions have been vetted by a committee or a pope or whatever? Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

CONSENT
All rights involve problems. So what? Let’s withdraw them? Let’s withdraw children’s rights  – back to corporal punishment, no education unless their parents can afford it, 18 hours in a mill etc, etc  – because some children sometimes abuse them? Let’s criminalise heterosexual sex because some men, or even women, use sex to exercise power over their partner and exploit the vulnerable? What on earth is the point that you are making here?

TOLERANCE
Anti-religious rhetoric is not intolerance. A wholly mistaken notion has developed around religion that any criticism is an act of intolerance.  But being tolerant doesn’t mean that we simply accept others’ views without questioning them. On the contrary, tolerance is a principle by which we deliberately choose not to prohibit or hinder opinions or behaviour of which we disapprove, and therefore by definition we criticise what we tolerate. If we remained silent, there would be no apparent principle at work. We might just be apathetic or indifferent. Arguably, we have a duty to speak out against things we think are wrong, especially if they cause suffering or unnecessary guilt to others. Take an extreme example: imagine a Nazi saying, “Be silent: your anti-Nazi rhetoric is intolerant”.

RIGHTS
I didn’t discuss the topic simply on the grounds of rights. I brought in the other issues such as adult consent, non-harm to others and tolerance as well.

CONSEQUENCES
You say that where there are consequences for society, personal freedom has limits. I agree. But what are the consequences in this case? You are not saying that incest is as dangerous to health as smoking, surely? As I understand it, health problems with incest normally only arise if it is continued down several generations. If this is factually inaccurate, then I will certainly reconsider my judgement (though it would be only one convincing argument against).

As for the stigma, this is not an argument for banning anything. Homosexuals, Jews, Muslims etc have been stigmatised, but this is hardly an argument for banning them. The problem is not with the gay, the Jew, the Moslem, but with others who inflict the stigma. It is they who should be dealt with by the law, not the victims of it. It seems to be mean that you are in danger of blaming the victim here.